The Trust Company's PEP Beneficiary
A Barbados trust and company services provider administers a discretionary trust settled by a non-resident. The protector is a former government minister of an overseas jurisdiction who left office three years ago. The sole beneficiary is the protector's adult son, who is a director of a company that has received state contracts in that jurisdiction. The settlor is a retired businessman with no apparent source of the $6 million settled. The provider's file records the protector as 'former PEP - low risk, exited' and applies simplified due diligence because the trust is 'private family wealth'. The provider has not identified the source of funds, has not verified the son, and has not refreshed the file in four years. A new relationship manager notices the state-contract link and asks whether the file needs review.
1. Analyse the PEP status of each party and explain why 'former PEP, exited' is an unsafe conclusion here.
Read the worked answer
PEP status must be assessed per person, not per relationship. The protector is a former minister. Under a risk-based approach, a person who held a prominent public function does not automatically become low-risk on leaving office; the risk persists for a period and, more importantly, the risk attaches to the source of wealth and the continuing connections, not merely to the job title. The fact that the protector retains a role in the structure - as protector, with powers over trustees - means the influence that made the person a PEP remains live.
The son is not automatically a PEP merely because his father was. But he is a family member of a PEP, which brings him within the extended PEP perimeter for risk purposes, and separately he is a director of a company receiving state contracts, which is a corruption-risk indicator in its own right. He must be identified, verified, and risk-rated on his own facts.
The settlor is not a PEP on the facts given, but the unexplained $6 million is the real problem: source of wealth and source of funds are unknown. 'Private family wealth' is a label, not evidence.
'Former PEP - exited' is unsafe because it treats a binary status as a permanent risk downgrade, ignores the protector's continuing powers, ignores the son's commercial links to the state, and is being used to justify simplified due diligence that the risk profile does not support. Simplified measures are for genuinely low-risk situations; this is at best standard and arguably enhanced.
2. What enhanced due diligence and decisions should the provider take, and what are the consequences of continuing without them?
Read the worked answer
EDD steps: re-identify and verify the protector, the son, and the settlor, and identify any other beneficial owners. Establish source of wealth and source of funds for the $6 million with documentary evidence - sale of a business, inheritance, salary history, or similar - and test the explanation against the settlor's known profile. Obtain the son's directorship details and the nature of the state contracts, including procurement records where obtainable. Establish the trust's purpose and expected activity. Obtain senior-management approval for the relationship, documented with reasons. Set a review cycle appropriate to a high-risk file, typically annual or on trigger events, not four years.
Decisions: if source of wealth cannot be satisfactorily evidenced, the provider should decline or exit the relationship. If it can, the file should be re-rated high risk, EDD applied, and ongoing monitoring intensified (transaction monitoring, periodic refresh, scrutiny of distributions to the son).
Consequences of continuing without EDD: the provider is exposed to a finding that it failed to apply risk-based CDD, failed to identify a PEP and family member, and failed to establish source of funds. That can attract supervisory action, financial penalties, and reputational damage, and it may expose the provider to facilitating corruption. The relationship manager's query is itself a trigger: once the link is known, continuing unchanged is a deliberate decision, not an oversight. Any suspicion arising from the state-contract link should be considered for a suspicious-activity report, and the file should be escalated to the MLRO before any further distributions.